CHERISH WOMEN’s HEALTH – NSPIRE NETWORK

Nspire Network

My Son’s Music

Meta

Team Law

Author: VaxCS

So CNN told us about this event 14 days before it happened and then was in touch with a student during the event. Hmmm. Nothing suspicious going on here. Marjory Stoneman Douglas School, Parkland, Florida.

..

..

..

How did this happen? Look at the date this article from CNN was posted – Feb 1st. Tragedy happened on Feb 14th. How is that possible if this wasn’t a planned event by the Deep state? They are sending a warning to Trump by using a school near his holiday home, (40 miles away) at a school built to honor a woman, who worked with a Rothchild who spent a lot of time campaigning to stop the draining of swamps, as it specifically states in her book, and her first play was called Storm Warnings? (Do you remember when Trump siad, The Storm is Coming, meaning he is about the begin draining the swamp of DC)

Kids have been interviewed (see videos below) and have stated there were 3 letter agency personel visiting the school a month earlier and all teachers were told there would be a drill without notice sometime this month.

On top of that the police chief is a pay to play member of Hillary’s organziation Hillary for America/Hillary for Florida.

Way too many coincidences and they do not care whether they actually kill people or not.

Plus the FBI were warned about this poor kid so they most likely used him.

One student said she was talking to him while she heard shots elsewhere in the school. He was not holding a gun.

Also, JFK was taken to Parkland hospital in Dallas. Trump revears JFK. Also, Trump has taken on the same cause JFK did that got him killed.

Also it was Ash Wednesday for Christians, which of course we all know Trump is. This was a message to Trump for sure.

They are sending a warning to Trump by using a school near his holiday home, (40 miles away) at a school built to honor a woman who was close to a Rothschild who spent a lot of time campaigning to stop the draining of swamps, as it specifically states in her book, and which also states something about a storm?

..

Kids have been interviewed and have stated there were 3 letter agency personel visiting the school a month earlier and all teachers were told there would be a drill without notice sometime this month.

On top of that the police chief is a pay to play member of Hillary’s organziation. Way too many coincidences and they do not care whether they actually kill people or not.

Plus the FBI were warned about this poor kid and did nothing, so they most likely used him.

One student said she was talking to him while she heard shots elsewhere in the school.

You Tube removes video – They know they have to hide it – BRUSH WITH SHOOTING SUSPECT | Stoneman Douglas High School student Alexa says she passed school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz after the shooting and had a brief exchange with him.

The Laguna Beach Antifa chapter asks its members & followers: “Please don’t retweet this picture of #NicholasCruz wearing an #Antifa shirt. We don’t need any more bad press”.

And yet the #FakeNews left wants us to believe Nicholas Cruz was a @realDonaldTrump supporter. #Lies

Black Conservative Patriot
16 hours ago
Glad you pointed out the truth about Sheriff Isreal. Allow me to toot my own horn here for a second. Forgive me. I made a video LAST YEAR calling out Mr. Israel and how convenient that the Santiago Esteban FF/hoax shooting at the Ft. Lauderdale airport happened in his county! I exposed his pro gun control agenda and his pride in being a progressive! was a smaller channel back then (I am still s small channel today) and that video only got like 400 views even though the first video I made about the airport shooting a few days before had gotten like 7,000+ views. Here is my vid from January of last year -My analysis of Sheriff Isreal starts at about 7:53 : A week later…is The Fort Lauderdale Airport a False Flag or a Hoax? Are those all Crisis Actors? And why did this all take place in Sheriff Scott Israel’s County…home to one of the most liberal progressive law enforcement leaders in America? A Sheriff who supports tougher gun control laws and is proud of it? Let’s look at this together!

2/15: Once again, Q predictions prove accurate, as we witness another false-flag organized deep state ritual sacrifice of American children in one of the most PEDO-infested corrupt counties in the country. For years, Timothy Holmseth has been researching the links between the FBI, CIA, CPS and baby-sales, child-porn, and child-trafficking linked to Broward County, FL. And now 17 people are slaughtered on Valentine’s day 3 weeks after a SWAT Team active shooter drill that was initiated by the Secret Service! I will post all links for this video in my blog to be posted within the hour on steemit.com. The link will be the first comment in the section below.

JFK was taken to PARKLAND MEMORIAL in DALLAS in 1963. Why was he killed?

Wednesday February 14th 2018 was Ash Wednesday for Christians. Trump is a Christian.

WHO IS DAVID HOGG? Oh he is the son of an FBI agent and is a CNN Crisis Actor.

Kennedy was trying to warn the people and stop the takeover, Trump was hired by the military and pentagon to actually take down those who have already taken over, the entire world. America must overcome to save the entire world.

..

Kids who were interviewed by CNN for school shooting.

Check out the date this twitter account and see how many followers. A kid from Florida shooting crisis actor.

A list of some mass shooters and the stark link to psychotropic drugs.

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world thatSSRI drugscan kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

Most Americans would probably be astounded to realize that the president who has been painted by Washington pundits as a reluctant warrior has actually been a hawk. The Iran nuclear deal, a herculean achievement, and the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba unfortunately stand alone as President Obama’s successful uses of diplomacy over hostility.

While candidate Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves office having been at war longer than any president in US history. He is also the only president to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.

While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.

One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.

President Obama has claimed that his overseas military adventures are legal under the 2001 and 2003 authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress to go after al-Qaida. But today’s wars have little or nothing to do with those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

The twisted legal architecture the Obama administration has constructed to justify its interventions, especially extrajudicial drone killings with no geographic restrictions, will now be transferred into the erratic hands of Donald Trump.

What does the administration have to show for eight years of fighting on so many fronts? Terrorism has spread, no wars have been “won” and the Middle East is consumed by more chaos and divisions than when candidate Barack Obama declared his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

While the switch from US troops on the ground to airstrikes and special forces has saved US lives, untold numbers of foreign lives have been snuffed out. We have no idea how many civilians have been killed in the massive bombings in Iraq and Syria, where the US military is often pursuing Isis in the middle of urban neighborhoods. We only sporadically hear about civilian killings in Afghanistan, such as the tragic bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz that left 42 dead and 37 wounded.

Pushed to release information about civilian deaths in drone strikes, in July 2016 the US government made the absurd claim it had killed, at most, 116 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya between 2009 and 2015. Journalists and human rights advocates said the numbers were ridiculously low and unverifiable, given that no names, dates, locations or others details were released. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has tracked drone strikes for years, said the true figure was six times higher.

Given that drones account for only a small portion of the munitions dropped in the past eight years, the numbers of civilians killed by Obama’s bombs could be in the thousands. But we can’t know for sure as the administration, and the mainstream media, has been virtually silent about the civilian toll of the administration’s failed interventions.

In May 2013, I interrupted President Obama during his foreign policy address at the National Defense University. I had just returned from visiting the families of innocent people killed by US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, including the Rehman children who saw their grandmother blown to bits while in the field picking okra.

Speaking out on behalf of grieving families whose losses have never been acknowledged by the US government, I asked President Obama to apologize to them. As I was being dragged out, President Obama said: “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.”

Too bad he never did.

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.Thomasine F-R.

Is Planned Parenthood lying about the so-called "health services" they offer women? Live Action investigated and found that the abortion giant DOES NOT help women who want to keep their babies. We contacted all 41 affiliates where undercover recording is permitted by state law.

Please remember folks this is a global war on THE PEOPLE. It is not rep vs dem or USA vs ???, this affects us all, corruptions and evils everywhere and not just Christian values being degraded, human race being defiled. This is a worldwide movement just needs the biggest pivot of America to start the purge and it will spread, massive red pilling required to avoid panic.

This is just 1,000th of the information I have researched.

By being sucked into the media that is degrading Trump to the lowest levels, you are hindering his role of destroying the deep state pedofiles. If you think Hillary and the democratic party and republican party and FBI and CIA and DOJ and congress is not complicent or that many upper levels are not actually the big players in all this, you are still asleep. Trump is playing 6d chess right now, exposing those who are actually the players. He is cleaning house or draining the swamp on all sides.

The ones who shout the loudest have the most to lose. The ones who resign have been given a repreave due to being forced into it unwillingly by fake sex videos and photos or know their time is up and are running.

Many have been caught and will be prosecuted. Many are having evidence still being prepared while he let’s them hang themselves by their own actions. He is a brilliant mastermind and the only person who is capable of taking down this world wide peodfile satantic ring that has been taking over the world via wars and the monetary system.

This is why I am cheering Trump on. Because I am tired of all the wars the US govt keeps saying we need to be in. I am tired of no one being able to end the abuse of children. I am tired of being regulated to death. I am tired of them robbing my bank account with inflation and devaluing the dollar. I am tired of the racist card continually being used to divide us all along with other definitions, like democratic or republican, like seual orientation, like religious belief, like colour of skin etc. etc.

There is so much evidence if you are willing to look and see and use your intelligence and sensibility, and open mindedness to see it.

Before you vote for Hillary Clinton, at least spend a little time reveiwing true testimonials from people who have worked for her and Bill, that have made it out alive.

First video below.

How Clinton’s stole billions in aid worldwide.

This guy had to set up all the accounts and the system. Everything is documented.

What happened to him after he blew the whistle?

Ex-Black-Ops talks to ex-CIA – what he had to do for Clintons.

Haiti – Trump’s enemy reports he called HAITI a SHITHOLE in a private meeting. Media turns it to be a fact and Trump is a racist in a public setting. No one else heard the comment and Trump denied the comment.

However, even if he did say Haiti was a shithole of a country that does not mean he means the people are shitholes, as the media would have you believe. It means the state of the country is a shithole.

The real question that needs to be asked is this: Why hasn’t Haiti been rebuilt with the billions that were sent to the Clinton Foundation and the Red Cross from people all over the world?

Make certain you watch the Haitian public official in Haiti talking about the Clinton Foundation and how Haiti wants the money they stole from all the billions of donations. Not long after this speech, he was found dead.

I found this paper while going through Stephen Ames’ files. I am
hoping that you will put it out on your E-mail and fax networks. This paper
explains and documents very much. It is absolutely mind blowing !!!!!!

If you place this paper on your E-mail and fax networks I will be more
than happy to respond to people’s questions. I have all of the documents
cited in this paper and they are available. This paper will shock even
those who think that they know what has happened and what is now taking
place. The deception is incredible. If the people do not respond to
this information we can then truly say that it is over and that we will
never be free. This paper is not opinion, but it is fact and is all
documented.

Now, what people have to realize is there are remedies for the problems
that not just America faces, but the World. There are people all over the
World that know what is going on and they are doing something about it.
People all over America are emerging victorious over the images in their
minds. Let us not forget the absolute astonishing amount of debt
discharges that have taken place over the last few months. What is happening
in America is unbelievable. People are coming out of the delusions, they have
figured and realized that the United States is a fiction and that it only
exists in our minds. Tens of thousands of people now know that the “United
States” does not exist and that it never has. There is no such thing as the
National debt or a loan from the bank. Has any one ever seen “current credit
money ?” The entire governmental system only exists in your mind.

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:

S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

“This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America)
Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.”

Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law.

Remember, King George was the “Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America.” See: Treaty of Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA ‘plantation.’

What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-n-hand to bring the people of America to there knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. Is this not incredible the King funded both sides of the War. But there was more work that needed to be done. Now the Articles of Confederation which was declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12 ” All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed,and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly ledged.”

Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, they were not done yet.

Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation

On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were acutely going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution.
The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s
debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a
party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don’t believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.

What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other words, a Person.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction.

Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.

Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid it states; All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it.

The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States

Now the creditors of the United States which included the King wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States.
So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the
Militia’s duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I’ll tell you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the floundering fathers and their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can’t. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!! If you don’t believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah.
14 Georgia 438, 520 which states ” But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it.”

Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One Section Eight clause (15) which states that it is the militia’s job to execute the laws of the Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…. the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their to collect our substance.

As you can plainly see all the Constitution did is set up a Military
Government to guard the King’s commerce and make us slaves.

If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find “The Treaty
of Amity, Commerce and Navigation. This Treaty was signed on November 19th,
1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states
that the King’s Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice
King that he was , he decided that the troops would return to England by June
1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the
King wanted them here.

Here is the key to were this started:

Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the
entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit:

“Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel.
Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees,
and carry out the enactment’s of the Talmudic sages, because the entire
Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted
the enactment’s and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the
decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of
Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the
entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher.”

We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the
subject Index, Mammon is defined as (“Civil law and procedure”).

Now turn to the “The Shetars Effect on English Law” — A Law of the Jews
Becomes the Law of the Land, found in “The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71:
pages 1179-1200.” It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are
the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the
Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became
the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. The
written credit agreement — the Jewish shetar is a lien on all property
(realty) and today it’s called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that
the Jews are owned by Great Britain and the Jews are in charge of the Baking
system.
We are living under the Babylonian Talmud, it is were all of
our problems come from. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been
enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is
total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things
that do not exist.

Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I’m sorry
people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in
court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is
true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.” Padelford, Fay & Co., vs.
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one)
the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you.
Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile
has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell
the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me
and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The
court then says case dismissed. Why ? Because you are not a party to the
contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract
(Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that
you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a
CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why ? Because you are attempting to
infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make
matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights.
You are a mere user of your Masters property! Here are just a couple of
examples:

“The primary control and custody of infant is with the government”
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

” Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband,
the wife and the state.” Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual
so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting
to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to
the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st
Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) You own no Property because you are a
slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

“The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute
inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were
instituted, and never can exist under government.” Wynehamer v. The People.
13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS
is not an Agency of the United States Government.

All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By
using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking
series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most
taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is
reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in
6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are
considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes
via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that
is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real
Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the
IRS, chapter 3. The OMB’s-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the
Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved
Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number
1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by
foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309,
Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for
the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads
U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn’t it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a
payment of a tax to the U.K. Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the
law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in
there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private
contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section
One. and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine
gets connected to it’s udders ? The answer is no. I have never known a cow
that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing
that your labor has ever produced. You don’t even own your labor or yourself.
Your labor is measured in current credit money. You are allowed to retain a
small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and
most of all breed more slaves. Did you ever notice how many of the other
slaves get upset if you try to retain your labor. You are called an
extremist, terrorist and sometimes even a freeman. They say that you are
anti-government. When the truth of the matter is you just don;t want to be a
slave. But, you do not have the right to force others to be free if they want
to be a slave that is entirely up to them. If they want bow down and worship
corporations, let them. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope are not
the problem, it is the other slaves. We would be free if the
want-to-be-slaves were gone. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope
would not even exist, because no one would acknowledge them. I for a matter
of fact, think that those who are in power are also tired of the slaves. All
the slaves do is stand around and MOO!!! For free healthcare, free education,
free housing and they beg those who are in power to disarm them I do agree
that a slave should not have access to a firearm. How can you disagree with
the government passing out birth control ? I hope the breeding of slaves
stops or at the very least slows down.

You see we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United
States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain
is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the
Pope.

Now to Rome.
“Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to
keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their
princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to
sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt
with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with
the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers
join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for
them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the
nations.” Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)

If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being
observed he must be obeyed. Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n.
4. Prati, 1844. Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being
accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44. Hence
the jus nationale,(Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws
prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign
Pontiff. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54. So could this be shown
that the Pope rules the world?
The Pope is the ultimate owner of everything in the World. See Treaty of
1213, Papal Bull of 1455 and 1492.

I could go on and on, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t let
this information scare you because without it you cannot be free, You have
to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your
mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great
Britain and the Vatican are corporations which are nothing but fictional
entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that your
slavery was because you believed a lie.

There are approximately 18 million Mexican immigrants living in the United States today. Out of that 18 million, it is estimated that 3 million, or nearly 20 percent, are illegal aliens. Those 18 million Mexicans present a growing threat to America’s self-determination because many play a dual citizenship role officially encouraged by the Mexican government. This is no secret; it’s all in Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006.” This shocking document is a five-year plan full of political rhetoric emphasizing planned improvements for every aspect of Mexico’s infrastructure, but it also lays out specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the US-Mexico border. In other words, Mexico is systematically trying to cultivate dual loyalties, i.e. disloyalty, among its ethnic compatriots in America. This is a naked expansion of Mexico’s national interest at the expense of ours; the mystery is why we are tolerating it.

“Globalization” is the buzzword that appears numerous times throughout Mexico’s plan. To achieve that goal, the Mexican government is counting on its citizens living abroad to strengthen Mexico’s influence throughout North America. The Mexican government is demanding that we give all Mexican illegals a free pass, and also support them with numerous social services paid for by American taxpayers. Some of these – like free medical care — we do not even provide to our own citizens. Mexico’s plan specifically outlines its intent concerning Mexican citizens who have entered the United States illegally in a subsection titled “Defense Of Mexicans Abroad.” The plan states:

“It is important to note that even if Mexico has achieved a number of agreements and mechanisms to ensure better treatment of our countrymen abroad, the issue of migration, especially in the United States, needs a new focus over the long term to permit the movement and residence of Mexican nationals to be safe, comfortable, legal and orderly, and the attitude of police persecution of this phenomenon must be abandoned and it must be perceived as a labor and social phenomenon.”

In other words, nothing is illegal and we are not a nation of laws any more, only markets.

In a television interview in 2000, Mexico’s President Vincente Fox made his country’s intentions clear concerning the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere:

“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”

In other words, his stated long-term goal is the abolition of the border between the US and Mexico. This is a polite way of saying an end to America’s distinct nationhood, i.e. to our nationhood, period. We are to be dragged down to the level of the corrupt, impoverished, backward, crony-capitalist disaster – a nation whose citizens evaluate quite honestly by fleeing at the rate of millions per decade – on our southern border.

On the surface, Mexico’s globalist vision for economic unity seems innocent, but it’s likely to create a very dangerous situation for America. Unlike our nation of mixed nationalities with various loyalties, Mexicans are extremely nationalistic, and they usually side with their homeland first on all issues. Considering that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in America at 12.6 percent, and Mexicans make up half of that population, the Mexican government is well on its way to wielding significant influence over U.S. policy by relying on the loyalties of their 18 million dual citizens.

Another disturbing section of Mexico’s National Plan concerns the government’s effort to set up illegal immigrants with special identification cards, allowing them to open bank accounts and acquire driver’s licenses anywhere in the United States. Basically, any Mexican illegal alien can walk into the nearest Mexican consulate with $29 and walk out with a “consulate card”. These cards are officially recognized in Mexico allowing illegal immigrants to operate on both sides of the border. Although the cards have been available for many years, they have not been officially recognized in America as proper identification until recently.

In 2001, the reliably-ultraliberal San Francisco combined city and county government unanimously passed a resolution to accept the consulate card as official personal identification. Since that first resolution, law enforcement agencies and municipalities throughout California and other parts of the United States, have also gone on to make exceptions for illegal Mexicans by accepting the cards. This is the first step toward making Mexican border jumpers legal by giving them blanket amnesty, something Vincente Fox has openly called for during immigration talks with the United States.

With a sagging economy and many unrealized campaign promises, Mexico’s leader is fighting for his political life inside what is essentially a third world country. Now, with his old friend and “Border Buddy” President Bush firmly in tow, Vincente Fox is pushing for the eventual abolishment of the US-Mexico border. Such easing of border restrictions would serve as a release valve for the most desperate unemployed Mexicans, thus relieving Mexico’s financial obligation to support its’ poorest citizens. Moreover, free movement across the border would allow Mexican workers to earn their money in the U.S. and spend it back in Mexico.

Just as their national plan dictates, the Fox administration is also encouraging Mexican immigrants to officially participate in Mexican politics from within the United States. In 2001, Mexico passed a law allowing dual citizenship for any Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise. In addition, Fox visited California several times this year to campaign for stronger absentee ballot turnouts on behalf of all the Mexican nationals living in the United States. Their dual citizenship law is a major weapon in Mexico’s battle for a piece of the American political pie, but it’s only part of an infiltration campaign that started many years ago.

During the past fifty years, Mexico’s dual loyalists have entered every facet of American society, including many public offices now held by the sons and daughters of Mexicans who originally entered the United States illegally, just to be redeemed by past amnesty programs. For decades they have slowly but relentlessly been taking control of local and state governments throughout the American Southwest. Although these Mexican-Americans were born and raised in the United States, many of them openly put their loyalty to Mexico before their loyalty to America. What other ethnic group in America would we tolerate this from? (When some German-Americans flirted with Hitler in their Bund organization in the 30’s, this so shamed their reputation as an ethnic group that they are now – despite being the largest ethnic group in America – also one of the most silent in terms of explicit ethnic self-expression.)

Today, the Mexican loyalists have become a dominating force in American society, influencing the culture, the language and most importantly, the political process. Thanks to Mexican-American lobbying efforts, California state representatives now officially recognize illegal aliens as “undocumented workers” treating them with a laundry list of special aid programs including free college tuition. Repeat: there are native Americans who can’t afford to go to college, and we are spending taxpayer money to send criminal migrants. In Texas, the state legislature recently conducted an entire legislative session in Spanish, and the story barely made the “B. Block” of local newscasts.

Furthermore, the 2000 presidential campaign proved just how important the Hispanic vote is to politicians on the national front. From day one of the campaign, then Texas Governor, George W. Bush, dragged his half Hispanic nephew, George P. Bush to every media event that might garner a sizable Hispanic audience. The plan worked so well that today George W. Bush is described in many Latin American circles as “America’s first Hispanic president” a strange title for a guy who once referred to Mexico’s national language as “Mexican” instead of Spanish.

Indeed, Bush’s relationship with Mexico and Vincente Fox goes back long before his bid for the presidency. The two were Governors at the same time, and they met regularly over the years concerning various issues including border security, energy production, and trade policy. Then during Bush’s first year as president, he and Fox met four times to discuss US – Mexican relations. In the fall of 2001, Bush publicly mentioned the possibility of a new amnesty program for Mexican illegals, but things cooled dramatically after the 911 attacks. Today however, Bush and Fox are back on the fast track to negotiating Mexico’s plans for economic and political expansion.

After the latest meeting of the US-Mexico Binational Commission (BNC) on November 26, the U.S. State Department confirmed that cabinet members from both sides signed a number of important agreements. One agreement that stands out is the “Bilateral Income Tax Treaty” that amends an existing bilateral income tax treaty between the two nations, thus allowing significant reductions in taxes on dividends, which officials say “will further facilitate cross-border trade and investment.” If fully ratified by both nations, this treaty will allow major corporations to invest in either country without being taxed at home on profits earned from across the border, thus merging our economies one step beyond NAFTA.

There is no doubt the Latinization of America is well underway, and Mexico is slyly laying the groundwork that could eventually destroy the security of our southern border. Furthermore, it’s no big secret that many Mexicans dream of reclaiming the land lost to America as a result of the Mexican-American War. Ever since that agreement took effect in 1845, numerous Mexican government officials have openly called for “Reconquista,” a political plan to recover the land they believe was unjustly stolen by the American government. Although Mexico has never officially encouraged the Reconquista movement, they have also never discouraged Mexican citizens (on and off American soil) from proclaiming its inevitability.

Frankly, the official plan of Mexico is closer to a plan of colonization than it is to a plan of development. Just as their national plan clearly dictates, the Mexican government is preparing for an attack on America — an attack perpetrated through ideology and assimilation rather than with bullets and blood. The self-hating political correctness of mainstream Americans, combined with their history-blind confidence that the United States is a nation invulnerable to territorial loss, continues to aid and abet this aggression.

=======================================================
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil –
is for good men to do nothing.”
– Edmund Burke
=======================================================

Half of congress on a train with helicopters above and all around and all traffic stopped yet garbage truck on train line of private train. Hmmm. Not an accident in my mind. Sabotage. Tweet about train crash tweeted before it happened.

Six Media companies all owned and controlled by one organization. The Swiss Propaganda Research Center SPR tied all media companies to single organization the Council on Foreign Relations CFR, a primary memebr of the circle of Washington Think Tanks promoting endless war. They act as primary provocateurs using phycological suggestiveness to create false narrative of danger with some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoya within the US population that it is under imininent threat og attack or take over. See chart on video. Run by the ruling establishment of the United States. They do not just analyze US foreign policy, they make it. Unelected as they are but does include several US and past US presidents and vice-presidents. So many leaders are members, but guess who is not? Trump. That is correct. Starting to get why Trump has been attakced mercilessly so much?

This picture does not reflect Trump doing his speech at D AVOS a day or so ago. BREAKING: President Donald Trump gives URGENT America First Speech at DAVOS World Economic Forum. It was the first time a president from the USA had attending in many presidentcies. Also, many country leaders were there. Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Iraq, China to name a few.

“V” and CJ discuss the memo presented to Congress that exposes the true nature of an attempt to change the outcome of the 2016 election. The actions that took place make the Nixon administration look like saints.

Internet data mining expert Clif High has a brand new report called “Soaring Twenties.” Clif High says there is good news coming, but not just for 2018, many years after. Clif High explains, “There is a really interesting set of data that’s been building for some time, and we have had this big flush of long term data, which is why I decided to do this report that is going out five years. I named it the “Soaring Twenties,” even though we are not into the 2020’s. . . . Our 2020’s, to some extent, are replicating the kind of language in the newspapers and limited news reels they had at the time of the 1920’s. Only instead of being “The Roaring Twenties,” we’re going to have a “Soaring Twenties.” Clif High also talks about a coming “bond debacle,” soaring gold and silver prices in 2018 . . . the future of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies, “legal actions will be taken” against the bad actors in government and the “Deep State.” Clif High also predicts some “fantastic levels of business failures.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Clif High of HalfPastHuman.com.

“A nondisclosure agreement signed by Hillary Clinton upon taking office as the nation’s chief diplomat undermines a key defense mounted by her and her allies against allegations that she mishandled classified information.”

West Point Graduate, Army Officer, and Clinical Psychologist Joachim Hagopian joins the program to shed light on the Global Pedophile and sex trafficking network. His recent book, “Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy, & The Deep State” is the most complete documentation of the historical and current account of the Child Trafficking Global Network to date. It’s not easy to read the horrors of that black market, but it is a critical account of the abuses worldwide that need to be eradicated for the sake of all of our children and the for the consciousness of humanity.

Everyone that hasn’t read this… bottom line NO more tax withholding on wages. Get your W-4 write EXEMPT unless you want to voluntarily pay them! Write “EXEMPT” in Block 7 per the instructions.

The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, – that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:

1. completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years;

2. strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment; and

3. completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is,

– to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally direct taxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that have been by used by the politicians to create the welfare based, class warfare system of taxation that has resulted in the divisive destruction of America, its people’s Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights;

– by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is constitutionally authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicialenforcement of only the perverted judicial Fabian opinions they issue, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that is authorized and exists.

What ? You may say – that’s crazy. What the hell are you talking about ?

It’s the same tax it’s always been ! There’s nothing new in the law that could do that ! Yea, – that’s right, it’s the same income tax law that it has always been, and now they have admitted it on the Congressional Record, and their world is about to change, – well, actually, implode.

Congress has no idea of what they have done, or of the true extent or size of the catastrophe within the tax enforcement system, that they have wrought with the new income tax law, and few Americans, if any have realized it yet,

– but any honest lawyer will tell you (after reading this) that everything you are about to read (and have read up to this point in this article) is irrefutably true.

FACT: For the last 60 years the IRS has been issuing income tax collection correspondence to Americans asserting that American citizens owe the payment of an income tax on their work, because of the adoption of the 16th Amendment. This claim to legal authority is all over their website; it is in their “frivolous Arguments” propaganda publications, where they repeatedly assert the income taxing authority under the 16th Amendment, and label as frivolous any reference made to the limitations on the taxing powers imposed under Article I of the Constitution; and, it is in the pleadings made on the record of the court by the United States as a plaintiff, in every tax case prosecuted in the federal courts in the last 30 years.

FACT: The Department of Justice attorneys argue in every single income tax case prosecuted in the federal courts, that the income tax is owed by the individual defendant as a function of the 16th Amendment alone, without use or need of any “applicability” of the authorized indirect Article I, Section 8, impost, dutyand excise taxing powers.

FACT: For the last 60 years the federal courts have been wrongfully allowing and upholding the constitutionally prohibited, and therefore unconstitutional, direct taxation of the alleged gross income of the American People, created as a function of all of their labors and work, as a direct tax without apportionment, under alleged authority conferred under the 16th Amendment to tax “… income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment, and without regard to any census or enumeration. ”

FACT: The 16th Amendment has no enabling enforcement clause in it, that would constitutionally authorizes the U.S. Congress to write any law to enforce any power alleged newly created or authorizedunder authority of the Amendment alone.

FACT: There are Amendments to the Constitution, both before and after the 16th Amendment, that do have and clearly contain an enabling enforcement clause within them, irrefutably proving the absencewithin the Amendment, of such alleged grant of any new enforceable power, is intentional.

FACT: In assessing the legal effect of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court plainly said in 1916 that “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation“. “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power oftaxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken outof the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . .”Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916)

FACT: The Article I, Section 8, clause 1, authorities to tax only indirectly, by uniformimpost, duty and excise, do not reach the labors of the American people with legal effect. This is why the federal government has argued for sixty years that the 16th Amendment was the sole basis for the enforcement of the income tax imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 United States Code (Title 26 is also called the I.R.C.). In speaking of the power to tax by ‘duties,’ ‘imposts,’ and ‘excises,’ the Supreme Court has consistently said:

” ‘We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs andexcise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.’ Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are ‘taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.‘ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in theConstitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.“ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 151-152 (1911)” Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 “Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)1

Which is mirrored in Black’s Law Dictionary: “Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition

“The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” Art. 1, § 8. If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1 , 240 U. S. 12.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581

1 Again, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of excise taxing power.

So, the granted taxing powers are conclusively defined within the U.S. Constitution: “Mr. Chief Justice Chase in The License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 72 U. S. 471, when he said: “It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.

Thus limited, and thus only it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.” And although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words “duties, imposts and excises,” such a tax, for more than one hundred years of national existence, has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances [that] has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue.” And with respect to the power to tax income the Supreme Court has said:

“The act now under consideration does not impose direct taxation upon property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under article 1, [section] 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the [income] tax imposed in the act under consideration. The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership. In the present case the tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax, measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain way.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 150 (1911) Which is repeatedly supported: “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed. –, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.” Stratton’s, supra at 414 So imposts and duties are taxes on imported and exported goods, i.e. : commodities and articles of commerce that are imported into, and or exported from, the United States of America. Imposts are also taxes on foreign “persons” and their activities in the United States (foreign individuals & companies, & organized operations like a foreign trust, charity, etc.). Imposts and duties are also taxes, where imposed, on personsin the U.S. territories and possessions, and on America citizens who are living and working in a foreign country under a tax treaty with the United States that allows the federal taxation of the American persons in that foreign country, under the active tax treaty.

So taxation, by impost and duty, by definition, fundamentally does not reach the labors of the American people conducted in the fifty states, where the labor does not involve any import or export, or other foreign activity. And Excise taxes are now accepted as being constitutionally defined by both law and precedent (over 600 times) as: “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … “.

But Title 15 U.S.C. Section 17, plainly and clearly states that: “The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce… “. Under the U.S. Constitution this law removes “the (domestic) labor of a human being (American citizens)” from subjectivity to any and all taxation by excise under Article I, Section 8.

This is of course why the United States’ IRS, DOJ, and the entire federal judiciary (at this point) PREVIOUSLY have had to claim in court for 50 years that – it is the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax, and not Article I, Section 8. Thus, under Article I of the Constitution, there is an admitted total lack of subjectivity of the citizens to any and all impost, duty or excise taxation on Labor, i.e.: the indirect taxation of the citizen’s labor, or a tax upon the exercise of his or her Right to Work resulting in the payment of “salary” or “wages“, does not apply to citizens, because it is not statutorily authorized, now made enforceable, as it is fundamentally outside of the legal reach, and scope of legal effect, of all of the granted Constitutional authorities to tax indirectly under authority of Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

The reason why this is so important to understand, is because this basic information, concerning the proper, limited, application and enforcement of the constitutional, and constitutionally granted, powers to tax, is essential in properly and fully understanding the legal issue of the limited subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts that exists with respect to the taxation of the individual citizens. A proper and complete understanding of this legal issue, immediately leads to the realization that there is no constitutionally granted subject-matter jurisdiction that can be taken over a civil action to adjudicate and or enforce the claims that are alleged by the United States in any Complaint filed in a legal action that is filed in the federal courts to pursue the enforcement of the payment of a personal income tax against an individual American citizen as defendant. In the United States of America, under the Constitution of the United States of America, our federal courts are courts of only limited, specifically enumerated, constitutionally granted, powers, that only exist as written in the law. The courts cannot enforce ideas, or a philosophy, or custom or habit, or ritual, or beliefs, or even common sense.

The courts can only enforce the written law of the statutes of the Titles of United States Code. Nothing else. And of course, under the Constitution of the United States of America, a statute (law), can only be written by Congress where,

first: – the Constitution grants a specific power to be exercised by the Congress (as is done in Article I, Section 8); and second: the Constitution specifically grants the authority to the Congress to write law (as is done in Article I, Section 8, clause 18), with specific applicability to the enforcement of the power(s) granted, that was, or were, exercised in operational practice (enforcement) by the government (IRS).

So, the three required elements of our constitutional law in America, necessary to establish the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court that can be taken over any legal action, sufficient to allow that court to entertain and adjudicate the action in the court, are:

(1) a specific power must be granted by the Constitution or Amendment for Congress (the United States) to exercise;

(2) a specific grant of authority for Congress to write law must be made by the Constitution or Amendment, with respect to the administration and enforcement of the specific power granted in (#1) above 2; and,

(3) a specific statute must be legislatively enacted by an authorized Congress, with specific application to the enforcement of the specific power alleged granted and exercised in (#1) above, and madeenforceablewith authorized law under (#2) above.

These fundamental elements of constitutional law, controlling the ability of a federal court to lawfully take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction over a legal claim made by complainant (like the United States) in the federal district court, combined with the irrefutable lack of any enabling enforcement clause that exists in the 16th Amendment as adopted, make the United States’ claims in the courts that the 16th Amendment is the foundational authority for the enforcement of the income tax against the individual citizens, on the mere basis of being a “person” with alleged “gross income”, appear dubious at best, and a complete and total lie at worst, as this lack of granted constitutional authority to write law under the 16th Amendment also explains the alleged tax-protestors’ claims of the last 50 years, that – if the tax is under the 16th Amendment, then the tax must be voluntary, as no law is constitutionally authorized to be written by Congress, and therefore no law can exist, or does exist, under the 16th Amendment that effects the income of the citizens directly, without the underlying foundational use of the impost, duty and excisetaxing authorities of Article I first being made applicable.

i.e. : a specific enabling enforcement clause of the Constitution, or one of its Amendments, must be shown to have been made applicable to the specific taxing power alleged constitutionally granted, and operationally practiced under (#1) above;

So the lower federal district and circuit courts have over time, seditiously reversed the Supreme Court’s original and true holding in 1916 – that the income tax is authorized and is constitutional under the granted and enforceable indirect Article I taxing authorities, as a measure of the amount of the indirect tax that is imposed on the income derived from the impost, duty or excise taxable activities or persons,

– who are made subject by the tax law to the payment of the uniform impost, duty or excise;

– which does not constitute an unconstitutionally unapportioned direct tax. The Supreme Court plainly held in 1916, in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) cases, that the income tax is an indirect tax under Article I, and is not a direct tax under the 16th Amendment.

Again: “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged .”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916) “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense – an authority already possessed [under Article I, Section 8] and never questioned – or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, . . .” Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 “…it clearly results that the [direct tax] proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” These holdings in 1916 of course merely reasserted the Court’s long-standing recognition of the constitutional fact that the federal taxationof labor (without apportionment to the states for payment of the direct tax), is not a constitutionally granted taxing power, as labor has historically been perceived by the courts as a constitutionally protected Right, and outside of the granted internal Excise taxation powers. “As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — ‘that all men are endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’ — not grant them but secure them — ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ “Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation,

. . . “It has been well said that, “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable [right] . . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” [in Justice Field’s Concurrence in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)] Justice Field was not alone in his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley, who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:

“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of a nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense.” Justice Pitney in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14, 59 L.Ed. 441, L.R.A. 1915C, 960, 35 S.Ct.Rep. 240 (1915) “But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) But the lower federal district and circuit courts have reversed this clear indirect “income tax” holding that was made by the Supreme Court in 1916, by invoking as controlling, not these true, controlling Supreme Court cases cited above (Brushaber & Stanton), but instead they invoke one of their own contradictory inferior opinions from the below list of inferior circuit court decisions that openly simply declare, erroneously (and obviously so), that the federal personal income tax is authorized by the 16th Amendment as a direct unapportioned tax that is laid on all of the income of all persons.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), (which simply asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without actually citing or quoting any text from that case opinion);

United States v. Sloan, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984), (which simply cites to Lovell and Collins to make its assertions);

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989), (which simply cites to Lovell and Parker to make its assertions). And so, as a result of the federal courts improperly using for the last 40 years these inferior, isolated, self-circular court decisions (upholding the direct unapportioned taxation of income under the 16th Amendment), actually reversing the Supreme Court’s true holding (upholding only indirect uniform taxation of income under Article I, Section 8), the federal personal income tax has been enforced for 60 years in the lower federal Tax Court and district and circuit courts, erroneously, as a direct unapportioned tax, in blatant violation of the prohibition on such direct taxation that is still constitutionally prohibited by Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

Which brings us back to the focus of this exposé, and the beginning of this paper,

– the new tax law H.R. 1 (Dec. 2017), made effective as law as of January 1, 2018. You see in 2011 the United States Congress passed another new law directly affecting the new tax law, requiring that all legislative Bills brought forward to the House floor for debate, contain within them a plain and clear statement identifying and declaring the alleged constitutional clause with the grant of authority that serves as the constitutional foundation to the congressional claim of a granted authority to write law with respect to the administration of the powers claimed therein, and proposed exercised under the new legislation.

So, what did they put in the Constitutional Authority Statement for H.R. 1, the new income tax law now in effect ? Did they actually write “the 16th Amendment” was the authority, as argued for 50 years, or something else ?NO! It’s either there or it isn’t.

First, it should be noted that the re-enactment of Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) Section 1, as done in H.R. 1, of course constitutes a re-enactment of exactly the same income taxing powers, and scheme of taxation (or lack thereof), as previously existed under the previous version of the income tax law, i.e. : the 1986 IRC code provisions of Title 26 U.S.C. (IRC) Section 1. Congress has simply adjusted the number of tax-brackets from seven to four, with different earnings thresholds and tax-rates associated with each of the four new tax-brackets, and with a new set of allowed or disallowed deductions and exemptions for everyone.

But, it is basically and essentially, an undeniable reimplementation of exactly the same scheme of graduated, bracketed, gross-income taxation (under IRC § 61) of taxable income (IRC § 63), as that (schemeof taxation) which has existed since 1913.

Supposedly, under this new law, nothing substantial or constitutionally foundational is believed to have been changed concerning or controlling the fundamental taxing power exercised, to tax income, and everything about the scheme is basically left unchanged, schematically identically the same as before (since the recodification of the tax law in 1986, which was also recodified (a new written version was created) in 1939 and 1954).

As never before…It now plainly states that the Constitutional Authority for the enactment of the new income tax law enacted under H.R. 1, is not the 16th Amendmentat all, but relies solely on “ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution of the United States.” for its authority. If the 16th amendment was intended as the authority, it would have been listed. It is NOT!

Uh-oh! You mean it isn’t the 16th Amendment after all? … and that claim of constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment as legal foundation to sustain the imposition and enforcement of the personal income tax, can never be made by the IRS, or in court by the United States attorneys, again, – ever !! In neither civil, nor criminal, tax prosecutions?

Finally, the true and correct constitutional authority for the federal personal income tax is plainly and clearly specified in the law, on the Congressional House record, as being established under ONLY Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which contains only the grant of the required constitutional authority to tax, indirectly, by impost, duty and excise, which powers, by law (Title 15 USC Sec. 17) do notlawfully reach the labors or income of the American People with force of law though the proper and lawful invocation and enforcement upon individual persons of only the granted indirect taxing powers.

The new income tax law, H.R. 1, by completely removing the 16th Amendment as an arguable constitutional basis and legal foundation, or as the applicable constitutional authority that is allegeable as the constitutional authority for the imposition, withholding, collection, and enforcement of the personal income tax in the federal courts as a direct tax,

– completely strips the IRS, the DOJ, and the federal judiciary of all of their lawful ability to legally enforce on American citizens after January 1st, 2018, the federal personal income tax in the federal courts as it has been practiced since 1945.

Its’ over. The IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary are all eviscerated. The monstrous income tax FRAUDperpetrated by the federal courts on the American People is fully exposed now, naked to the world, and the behavior and opinions of the federal judiciary are exposed as nothing but the treasonous sedition they have always been. i.e. : communistic and not constitutional. Repugnant, disgusting, corrupted, polluted, perverted, ultra vires judicial behavior and opinions, all committed for sixty years outside of the granted constitutional authority that exists for the court to lawfully act under, is all exposed. Naked to the world.

The Emperor wears no clothes. This new constitutional clarification now proves it has all been conspiratorial judicial theft. Nothing more, and nothing less. The judicial crimes of the last sixty years, fraudulently perpetrated on the American People by the federal judiciary in the name of tax has all been pure unlawful and wrongful conversion of the constitutionally protected private property of We the People,under color of law, under color of office, and in the name of tax only;

– for there is no law becausenone is authorized, and there is no enforceable
direct tax or taxing power conferred under the 16th Amendment as previously used and deceptively claimed, because no such power is constitutionally made enforceable against the individual ‘person’, as opposed to one of the “several states”.

Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 – “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned amongst the several states which may be included within this Union”

AllAmerican citizens, in all 50 states, are all nowEXEMPT – as they always were, but is now clarified by constitutional as now clarified by congress), from any required payment or withholding of the federal personal income tax from their paycheck, earned at their place of employment in one of the fifty states, and everyone should therefore now claim EXEMPT on their W-4, as provided in law thereupon, under the supremacy-clause exemption from withholding, that is made at Title 26 USC (IRC) Section 3402(n), for informed employees to claim.

Go ahead, “Google” it, – “H.R. 1 Constitutional Authority Statement”. See for yourself. Without the use of the misapplication of the 16th Amendment to erroneously allege a direct tax on income that is owed by all “persons”, there can be no lawful enforcement of the personal income tax on the income of the American People, by any Department, Agency, Service, or any other group of men that exist within the federal government,

– like the IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary, or even the “United States of America” (as a plaintiff in the courts), without there first being the clear applicability of some impost, duty, or excise tax to measure, that lawfully and properly taxes the underlyingtaxable (business, commodity, or trade based) activity from which the income is derived.

Therefore, if there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that applies to the underlying taxable activity, resulting in “taxable income”, then there is no amount of “gross income” to measure as tax. And, since there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that reaches either the “wages” or “salary” of the American People, earned by Right, as those terms (“wages” and “salary“) are not included in IRC Section 61 defining the sources of gross income constituting taxable income of an American citizen;

– but the terms are specifically included in IRC Section 1441(b), wherever “wages” or “salary” are earned by the non-resident alien person that is identified in law under IRC Section 1441(a). And, since it is only the foreign person (Follow this LINK and CLICK on Person see the definition – and also look up definition of individual in the code – it’s likely not you), who is made subject under the provisions of IRC Sections 7701(a)(16), to the collection of the federal personal income tax imposed in the code sections of Subtitle A (Chapters 1-6) of Title 26, which is where the original 1913 income tax laws are found in today’s law.

Subtitle A is the body of law that was enacted by Congress in 1913 as the federal personal income tax law, enacted under the original income tax legislation of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, then it has now become impossible (under the new H.R. 1 income tax law, ONLY under Article I, Section 8, authorities) for any party or person to lawfully withhold or collect any federal income tax from the payments made to an informed American citizen in one of the fifty states!

Oh, by the way, a Tariff, as enacted within the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, is one form of an impost, which taxing power, when exercised in the 50 states, is limited in constitutional operation to the taxation of only foreign persons and imported foreign goods, commodities, and other taxable “articles of commerce“. An impost, in the form of an enacted tariff, has no internal application to thedomestic activity of American citizens conducted by Right within the fifty states, without any involvement with foreign goods or foreign persons.

So, as I said in the beginning: The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:

1. Completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years; Exposing 60 years of IRS THEFT & UNLAWFUL CONVERSION BY FRAUD.

2. Strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its usual illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (Exposing 60 years of DOJ FRAUD AND/OR STUPIDITY); and

3. Completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is, to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally direct taxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that are used to create the welfare-class and class warfare systems that are resulting in the destruction of America, Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights, by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicial enforcement of only the perverted judicialFabian opinions, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that exists.

This clearly exposes 60 years of JUDICIAL FRAUD, ERROR, and ARROGANCE.

Now you also know that not only is this not crazy, it is ALL irrefutably TRUE. Oh yea, by the way, it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that calls for the graduated and communistic taxation of a population that is kept divided by the different classes of the population defined in the non-uniform tax law by the creation of the different tax-brackets established therein; with different rates of tax for each bracket as under the communistic system of unconstitutional taxation that we suffer under today (for the last 72 years- since 1945), rather than the system of uniformity in taxation that is constitutionally required of both the authorized direct, and indirect taxation of We the People in America and our activities. That 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto, explicitly states:

“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

So, now you know where the income tax enforcement operations of the IRS, the DOJ, and federal judiciary really came from, for the last 60 years, because it isn’t Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, or the 16th Amendment.

Now our government servants, and especially the federal judiciary, stand condemned by their own ignorance and arrogance, and sedition. By its own congressional admission, now made in the written formal Congressional Record of the United States of America, they are nothing but as guilty as sin itself. And now, there is only one path left by which they may escape to find their way back to justice and righteousness, repent.

COMMENT AND CALL TO ACTION – It’s time to move in on every case pending or case already judged in the past and open the prisons doors for those enslaved under this fraud, by bringing a Mandatory Judicial Notice of this argument into that case or appeal, to prove there was never constitutional jurisdiction for the IRS to bring cases in Tax Court or US District Court citing the 16th amendment, now or in the past. Then after winning these cases or in conjunction with your action to stop those cases, sue for constitutional violations using this new found information and congressional rules as the evidence.

Basic content provided by: Thomas Freed (tell him you were sent by TJ at (Youarelaw.org)Email: Tom@IRSzoom.com

Re: IRS Letter received by the company attempting to alter a sworn document

STATEMENT OF LEGAL FACTS ON INCOME TAX

AND

THE WITHHOLDING OF TAX FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS

Dear «Paymaster First Name»,

This legal brief on income tax and withholding is being delivered to you in order to address the improper instructions that you have received from the I.R.S., to alter my sworn statement in the form of an Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate – Form W4, and deduct and withhold tax from my pay at a rate commisurate with a status of single and 0 allowances, based on some unidentified determination made without authorization or proper cite of statute by some unidentified person in the IRS.

To understand why the IRS has no legal authority to order the company to change the withholding rates applied to my remuneration, it is necessary to understand not only the statutes applying to the withholding of income tax by the emplyer, but also the statutes of Subtitle A actually establishing the actual statutory liability for the payment of the the income tax that exist in the written law of the United States Code. It is also important to understand the nature and specific language of the statutes actually making persons liable for the payment of the income tax, which is not the direct tax the American People have wrongfully been led to believe that it is, but is in fact actually much more like the indirect sales tax collected by our stores, than it is like the direct tax on income mandated by the second plank of the communist manifesto, which our government improperly practices and unlawfully imposes on the American People under a de-facto operation that is far removed from a dejure application of the law.

INCOME TAX (1913)

Income Tax Under the 16th Amendment and Subtitle A.

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, (1916), the case the IRS, the Justice Department, and the judicial branch of the government all cite to establish the constitutionality of the income tax laws, it clearly states in the very first sentence of the Opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice White:

“…, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, 9 (1916)

Please take careful notice of the fact that Chief Justice White clearly and unequivocably identifies in the first sentence of the Opinion that the income tax provisions in the law are part of a TARIFF ACT. By definition, a tariff is a tax laid on foreign imports or FOREIGN economic activity.This is the little known truth, and the “dirty little secret” which is never taught in law school about the origin of the income tax laws that were actually passed in 1913.

But one can easily verify this startling fact of law for himself with a short visit to any law library (or reliable web site posting of the Supreme Court case opinion texts).

A tariff, of course, is a tax, or a schedule of rates for a tax, on foreign goods or activity being imported into America, or a tax imposed on foreign activity conducted within America. A tariff is one form of an “impost”, which is of course, one of the three kinds of indirect taxes, imposts, duties and excises, authorized by the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, for the government to lay and collect to provide for the operation of the government’s legitimate functions. However, as a tax on the importation of goods from a foreign country and on foreign activity in America, a tariff, clearly is NOT and CANNOT BE, legally or lawfully applied to the domestic activities of American citizens.

The Supreme Court tells us that the income tax was originally part of a tariff act (law), which would make the tax an indirect tax under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (authorizing imposts, duties, and excises), and not a direct tax. But that certainly does not agree with how the tax is enforced by the I.R.S. today, does it? So, how is the law really imposed and applied in the statutes? Has it been changed since 1913, or, under the law, is there still evidence in the law that it is still, and has always been, nothing more than a tariff? Does the Supreme Court help us understand the answers to these questions that must be immediately raised by the revelation that the income tax is originally, actually, part of a tariff act, and was not a domestic tax at all?

In the Brushaber decision cited above, Chief Justice White in the Opinion of the Court further tells us that:

“2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax …” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 US 1, 21-22 (1916)

Here, the court clearly tells us that the scheme of the income tax, as provided by the tariff act, is that of a tax that is collected at the source, by third parties identified as “corporations, etc.” The entire scheme of the tax as it was originally imposed under the law is described by the Court in this sentence.

The Court identifies that this “…collecting the tax at the source;” is how the income tax is actually imposed in the law because “The act provides…”, and it identifies how the tax is to be collected and paid under the actual laws that were passed into existence, as it “…makes it the duty of corporations, etc. to retain and pay the sum of the tax…”. This “collecting the tax at the source” – the duty to retainand pay the sum of the tax, is effected in the law by enacting a legislatively created duty to withhold tax from payments to subject persons before payment, so that the tax is already paid before the subject taxpayer ever even receives the funds. This pre-collection of tax, collection at the source, is of course what the income tax was really all about in 1913.

The Opinion of the Court clearly states that the act creates and imposes a legal “duty” on the “… corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax”. This legislatively created “duty” of the “corporations, etc.”, identified and referenced here by the Supreme Court, is actually defined in the law and has been since the inception of this tax in 1913. Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(16) defines the lawful authority of a “Withholding Agent” and implements that legislatively created duty “duty” to “retain and pay the tax” (by withholding from subject persons).

The SUBTITLE A “Withholding Agent“

The term “Withholding Agent” is defined at Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(16):

7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly

incompatible with the intent thereof –

(16) Withholding agent

The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

Sections 1441 through 1443 (Exhibit B) are entitled:

1441. Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens

1442. Withholding of tax on foreign corporations

1443. Foreign tax-exempt organizations

Obviously, none of these sections can be applied to withhold tax from an American citizen. Furthermore, an American citizen may utilize the regulatory provisions of these sections to establish his or her immunity from the withholding of subtitle A income tax by a “Withholding Agent“. This is evidenced by the provisions of
26 C.F.R. 1.1441-5(a), It reads:

26 C.F.R. 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding.

(a) Individuals. … an individual’s written statement that he or she is a Citizen of the United States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a Citizen or resident of the United States. This statement shall be furnished to the withholding agent in duplicate. ….

This regulatory section corresponds to, and implements, the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Section 1441 of the United States Code. It clearly states:

“… an individual’s written statement that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United Statesmay be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a Citizen or resident of the United States.”

IRSPublication 515, the instruction booklet from the IRS to the “Withholding Agent“, on how to implement the subtitle A withholding regulations, confirms that American citizens are not subject to the withholding of subtitle A income tax by “Withholding Agents“. It states:

WITHHOLDING EXEMPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS

You should withhold any required tax if facts indicate that the individual, or the fiduciary, to whom you are to pay the income is a nonresident alien. However, the alien may be allowed an exemption from withholding or a reduced rate of withholding as explained here.

Evidence of Residence. If an individual gives you a written statement stating that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you do not have to withhold tax. …

Citizens who formally declare themselves to be American citizens, are clearly exempted from the withholding of income tax by Withholding Agents, and are in fact completely outside of the Withholding Agent’s legal authority to withhold Subtitle A income tax by virtue of the specific statutory definition of the Withholding Agent.

Subsection (c) of 26 CFR 1.1441-5 provides the instructions to the Withholding Agent for the handling and disposition of the duplicate Statements of Citizenship:

(c) Disposition of statement and form.

The duplicate copy of each statement and form filed pursuant to this section shall be forwarded with a letter of transmittal to Internal Revenue Service Center, Philadelphia, PA 19255. The original statement shall be retained by the withholding agent.

Companies that refuse to obey this regulation after it has been provided to them, and simply refuse to forward the duplicate copy of furnished Statements of Citizenship to the Philadelphia offices as instructed in the regulation, are committing a willful violation of a known legal duty.

The last section (statute) referenced in the definition of the Withholding Agent, Section 1461, states:

1461. Liability for withheld tax

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

This statute clearly states that it is the Withholding Agent who is made liable for the payment of the income tax in Subtitle A. And, of course, he is not made liable for the payment of income tax on his own income, he is made liable for the payment of the income tax that he has already collected by withholding from other subject persons. There is no other statute in all of Subtitle A that establishes any statutory liability for the payment of the income tax by any other person other than the “Withholding Agent” because the tax is indirect, and it is kept indirect by this provision for liability, not for tax on one’s own income, but for the tax that has been collected by withholding from other subject persons. Just the same way that the store is made liable for the payment of the sales tax that is collected by the store from third party taxpayers actually subject to the payment of the tax at the cash register, but not made liable for the payment of the tax to the Treasury. That is the duty of the store, the tax collector. It is the same with the income tax. It is the duty of the “Withholding Agent” to retain and pay the tax, and the only liability that exists in law is this liability for tax that has been withled from subject parties. There is no liability for tax on one’s own income established anywhere in the law because that would be unconstitutionally direct taxation which is still prohibited.

I REPEAT, Section 1461 is the ONLY statute in ALL of SUBTITLE A that makes anyone liable to pay the income tax. By making ONLY the Withholding Agentliable for the payment of tax, the scheme for the collection and enforcement of the income tax is kept entirely INDIRECT – just as it was identified by the SUPREME COURT in 1913. By injecting this third party (the Withholding Agent) into the scheme for the collection of the income tax, the burden to pay the tax is shifted by withholding from the payer of the tax – the tax collector (the Withholding Agent), to the actual taxed subject and real taxpayer – the non-resident aliens and foreign corporations that are the proper taxed subjects of the federal government under the law, and the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3-5).

Under the actual provisions of Title 26’s Subtitle A, which is nothing more than the statutory implementation of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act, the income tax (tariff) act taxes the FOREIGN PRESENCE and FOREIGN ACTIVITY in America, INDIRECTLY! It DID NOT and DOES NOT directly and communistically tax the fruits of the labors of the American citizens, as the IRS would have us all believe – BUT, the Supreme Court says differently, and has so since 1913.

Remember, the Brushaber case is still the supreme authority as regards the constitutionality of the income tax provisions, and if the law is applied outside of the approved scheme of the tax that was actually implemented in the statutes in 1913 (and which still exist today as shown herein) – which is a scheme of indirect collection by withholding by third parties from subject foreign persons, then that un-supported application is a bastard child of a de-facto practice, which is done outside a dejure application of the law, and which, cannot be shown to have any statutory basis or legitimacy at the heart of the practice.

The injection, by the statutes, of this third party, the Withholding Agent, into the income tax collection scheme of collection at the sourcekeeps the income tax indirect because the tax is collected by that third party – the Withholding Agent, and the burden is shifted from that third party to the actual subject foreign taxpayer through withholding. Under the actual provisions of the statutes, the tax is not collected directly by the government from the subject taxpayer, but is collected indirectly by the third party Withholding Agents, who are then made liable (under § 1461) for the payment of the tax that they have collected from those subject taxpayers, almost exactly the same way that the State governments have third parties (the stores) collect their sales taxes for them from customers (the taxpayers).

Under the actual provisions of the statutes of Subtitle A, the sovereign American citizens and domestic corporations are not taxed and are not cast in the role of subject taxpayers, but rather are empowered as the third party tax collectors. It is the subject, foreign, non-resident entities – individual and corporate “persons”, that are actually cast in the role of subjecttaxpayers by the Subtitle A income tax laws.

Finally, Section 1463 states who it really is that is to be penalized with interest, penalties, and additions to tax, if the tax is not properly withheld and paid into the U.S. Treasury as required by this indirect scheme established by these “collection at the source” provisions for withholding tax from payments to subject persons:

1463. Tax paid by recipient of income

If—

(1) any person, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter, and

(2) thereafterthe tax against which such tax may be credited is paid,

the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from such person; but this section shall in no case relieve such person from liability for interest or any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect of such failure to deduct and withhold. (emphasis added)

This code section says that it is the Withholding Agentwho is responsible for, and who must pay, the penalties and interest and additions to tax that are due on the tax that was not properly withheld, reported, and paid into the Treasury by the Withholding Agent. It is not the actual taxpayer who must pay any of these things, not the interest, not the penalties, and not the additions to tax. This is because, to impose any of those things on the taxpayer directly would be to transform the constitutional indirect scheme of collection that is actually provided for in the statutes, into an unconstitutional scheme of direct taxation of the people, which the Supreme Court still says today, cannot exist under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

This is all straight from the law, as it exists today, and this agrees completely with what the Supreme Court wrote in its Brushaber Opinion in 1916: that the income tax is part of a tariff act, withheld at the source by Withholding Agentsfrom subject persons – who are all foreign. The tax is laid in the original act, and still in the law today, as a tariff that is withheld only from foreign persons – because only non-resident foreign persons and foreign corporations can be lawfully forced to pay a tariff on their domestic activities in the fifty states.

The income tax is not a direct tax under some new authority or power established or newly granted by the 16th Amendment, but rather an indirect one under Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1 – and, according to the Supreme Court, the tax is withheld at the source and paid by third parties, the “corporations, etc.” with a “duty” to “retain and pay the sum of the tax”, i.e.: the Withholding Agents. The domestic activity (within America) of an American citizen cannot properly be made the subject of any tariff laws because tariff laws only apply to foreign activity.

However, the activity of a non-resident alien or foreign corporation in any of the fifty states is properly subjected to the payment of an income tariff because it actually constitutes foreign activity, and not domestic activity because it is conducted by a foreign entity in America who is not an American citizen or resident. It is foreign activity and foreign activity alone that is legally and properly subjected to the payment of an income tariff, which by definition, can only be imposed on foreign activity (or the income derived from it), and not on domestic activity or the income derived from it.

After the Brushaber decision was taken and the Opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice White, the Treasury Department released Treasury Decision 2313 (Exhibit C) on March 21, 1916. It states, in summary:

T.D. 2313

“Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 24th, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income “from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States,” computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.

The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on within the United States, shall make a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals.”

One should carefully note that this Treasury Decision implements the withholding of income tax ONLY from foreign persons, and further states that it is those non-resident (foreign) aliens that are liable for the payment of income tax on their trade and business. It does not say that American citizens are liable because this Decision is implementing A TARIFF ACT. It was understood in 1913 that a tariff does not apply to citizens’ activity inside America, and this irrefutable legal fact has been lost track of by the legal community because they have also lost track of the fact that the income tax provisions that were tested by the Supreme Court in 1916 were PART OF A TARIFF ACT, and WAS NOT domestic legislation.

So we clearly see, that the United States government knew (at one time at least) that the income tax was (and under the law still is) a tax in the form of a tariff that was only imposed on and withheld from non-resident foreign persons and foreign corporations. Under the scheme of the tax adopted in the tariff act, the foreign entity, non-resident aliens and foreign corporations, are the actual taxpayers and subjects of the income tax, and the sovereign entities, the American citizens and corporations, were, and are, cast in the role of the sovereign tax collector, not the subject taxpayers. The only tax they paid was on the income of foreign persons that they themselves had withheld monies from when services or properties were paid for. Under the letter of the actual law the citizens did not, and still under the law do not, pay tax on their own income, only on the income of the non-resident foreigners’ whom they do business with and make payments to for services rendered.

This is how the income tax was applied and enforced for the first thirty one years it existed, from 1913 to 1944. American citizens did not pay the income tax on their own income during this period, as many older folks will tell you, because the law was properly enforced. Then, in 1944 the Subtitle C Employment tax laws were passed to authorize the withholding of tax for the new Social Security program, and, for the first time, also authorized the withholding of the income tax from any person who requested it on a Form W-4, rather than only withholding from the actual subject foreign persons as the law had provided for the previous thirty one years as shown above. Additionally, widespread use of Form 1040 began for the first time for the legal purpose of obtaining a refund, or in order to claim deductions, credits, expenses, etc., which all require the filing of a Form 1040 in order to be claimed.

However, the scheme of the income tax under Subtitle A was not changed by this addition to the code in 1944 of the employment tax laws of Subtitle C. The employer of Subtitle C is not the Withholding Agent of Subtitle A. Subtitle A and Subtitle C are separate programs (taxes) in the law, each constituting its own distinct authority over its tax program. They do not share each other’s powers and they each play a distinct and different role within their own Subtitle. They are distinct and separate authorities implementing different requirements of the law.

Subtitle A provides the income tax laws that were passed in 1913, and Subtitle C specifies the social security and employment tax laws which were passed 31 years later in 1944. The employment tax laws of 1944 are distinct and separate from the income tax laws passed in 1913. The Subtitle A income tax laws actually imposing the income tax, and providing for its withholding by Withholding Agents, were never altered, re-written or expanded to actually impose the tax on domestic activity, it was just authorized under Subtitle C to be withheld by the employer from any employee who requested that it be withheld on a Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate. However, no law requiring the filing of a Form W-4 to obtain employment has ever been passed.

Obviously the legal powers of a Withholding Agent, as established by statutory definition, do not effect or impact myself or my earnings. Section 1461 also can confirm for the company, that since it would be obviously operating outside of the provisions of the law in withholding from a declared American citizen such as myself, that the company is NOT indemnified for moneys wrongfully withheld from my earnings, as this statute (1461) only indemnifies agents who withhold and make payments “in accordance with the provisions of this chapter“, (i.e. Chapter 3 – from FOREIGNERS).

This is the entire extent of the complete legal authority to withhold income tax under Subtitle A. The authority to withhold is an authority to withhold ONLYFROM FOREIGN PERSONS. There is no other authority established anywhere in Subtitle A for the withholding of income tax from citizens, or any other persons, and it is clear that it is the Withholding Agents themselves, according to 26 USC § 1461, who are liable for the payment of tax, not the American citizen (unless he or she is personally performing in the capacity of a Withholding Agent, which I am not doing). It is absolutely clear, a “Withholding Agent” has no legal power to withhold tax for any reason, absent a court order, from any American citizen who declares such status through the use of duplicate Statements of Citizenship under the provisions of 26 CFR Section 1.1441-5(a).

Again, the little known, but irrefutable truth about the income tax is that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution did NOT do away with the Constitutional prohibition on DIRECT taxation established in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 (and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3). The Supreme Court ruled in 1916 regarding the 16th Amendment that:

“… the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the … power of income taxation possessed by Congress … from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.. ”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112 (1916).

This decision re-states and confirms the ruling handed down in the Brushaber case, which was the case decided just previously to this Stanton case in 1916. In both cases the Supreme Court says the same thing, – that the income tax is not a direct tax, but is rather an indirect tax under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 that may not be legally imposed on citizens in a direct fashion. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 authorizes the federal government to lay taxes: imposts, duties and excises. The Supreme Court tells us in the first sentence of the Brushaber decision that the income tax provisions being tested are part of a tariff act. A tariff is one form of an impost. Why and how is there any confusion at all about how this tax is actually laid and collected in the provisions of the statutes? The irrefutable truth is always crystal clear.

EMPLOYMENT TAX (1944)

Income tax under Subtitle C, and withholding under Section 3402.

The SUBTITLE C “Employer”

In 1944 the employment tax laws were added to the statutes and for the first time the income tax began to be withheld not only from just the foreign persons upon whom it is actually imposed, but, as we will see when we examine the statutes themselves, also from any person in America who did not know to formally and legally certify that they were not liable for tax under Subtitle A. Few citizens were aware in 1944, and even fewer are aware today, of the Subtitle A reality that this brief documents, ie.: that liability for the payment of income tax is only established indirectly in the name of the Withholding Agent, and that no citizen has any statutory liability at all for the payment of any income tax what-so-ever on his own, personal, domestic income under the actual provisions of the Subtitle A income tax laws actually enacted in 1913 under the (Underwood-Simmons) tariff act.

The statutes providing for the “collection at the source” of the income tax by the employer of Subtitle C, under an extension of the same sort of indirect scheme that was identified by the Supreme Court in 1916, are also quite clear. These statutes are found in Chapter 24 of Title 26. Title 26 U.S.C. Section 3402, subsection (a), appears to authorize the general withholding of income tax at the source by the “employer” from “wages” paid by the employer to its employees. That section states:

3402. Income tax collected at source

(a) Requirement of withholding

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary …

Note that the very first sentence of this statutory authority of the employer to withhold income tax isprefaced by the words “Except as otherwise provided in this section ..”.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section …”

The actual authority to withhold tax under this statute IS NOT ENTIRELY DEFINED BY SUBSECTION (a), but is clearly made contingent upon other provisions of the statute. In fact, that apparent authority of the employer to withhold under subsection (a) is severely restricted and limited by the specific language of subsection (n) of this same code section, 3402. It reads:

(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shallnot be required to deduct and withhold ANY tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee –

(1)incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and

(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

The Secretary shall by regulations provide for the coordination of the provisions of this subsection with the provisions of subsection (f). …

The duplicate Statements of Citizenship I am providing to the company make the certification necessary regarding liability for income tax under Subtitle A, this year and last, necessary according to this statute, to relieve the company, as an employer, from any legal duty to withhold income tax from me under BOTH, Section 3402 and the entire Chapter 24.

One should note that Subsection (f), whose provisions the Secretary is commanded to coordinate with the provisions of this subsection (n), is entitled: “(f) Withholding exemptions”.

As you should now be aware, I have no statutory liability for the payment of any income tax under Subtitle A, because it is ONLY the Withholding Agents that are made liable for the payment of the income tax in Subtitle A, and I have had no business dealings with any foreign persons, and therefore have had no duty to withhold any tax from any payments made to any persons. The Withholding Agents, of course, are only made liable for the tax that they have collected from the actual subject, foreign, third party taxpayers that they have withheld money from under the statutory mandate of Subtitle A to withhold tax from foreign “persons” (§§ 1441 and 1442).

I repeat again, the ONLY Code section in Subtitle A that specifies liability for payment of the income tax is Section 1461. Nor do I have any liability for tax under the provisions of Subtitle C. Section 3403 is the only statute in Subtitle C (just as Section 1461 is the only statute in Subtitle A) that specifies liability for payment of the income tax under Subtitle C. Section 3403 states:

3403. Liability for tax

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

I am not the employer. However, the employer is only legally liable for the payment of this tax (that is withheld under the provisions of Section 3402), where money is actually withheld from payments to an employee. If an employer does not deduct and withhold from payments to an employee who is an American citizen for a just or reasonable legal cause, then the employer is NOT made liable for the payment of any tax (because it was properly not withheld), and also, cannot be made liable for any addition to tax, interest, or penalties associated with that failure to withhold, as shown below.

Further, one should note that the withholding of income tax at the source under Section 3402(a) is critically hinged upon the definition of the term, “wages“; as it is only from “wages” that the tax withholding is authorized. Although the term “wages” has at least three different definitions within Title 26 alone, those definitions being found at 3121(a), 3306(a) and 3401(a), the controlling definition of “wages” within chapter 24, where Section 3402 is found, and relevant to this discussion, is provided at Section 3401(a). It states:

3401. Definitions

(a) Wages

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

Since “wages” are defined in the code in terms of an “employee” and “employer“, in order to accurately determine precisely who is affected by this requirement, it is necessary to examine how those terms are defined and which persons are included in the definition of those terms. The term “employee” is defined at § 3401(c), it states:

3401. Definitions…

(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

The remuneration in the instant matter, mine, will not be earned by a person who is included in this definition of federal employees whose employment contracts may be controlled by the federal government. Therefore my remuneration cannot technically under the law be considered or treated as “wages” subject to the withholding of tax under Section 3402(a) unless I provide my permission for such withholding by providing an Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate – Form W-4 allowing such deduction and withholding from my pay.

Furthermore, since the term “employer” is itself defined in terms of a [government] “employee“:

3401. Definitions…

(d) Employer. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, …

It is clear that the “employer” intended by Congress to be affected by these statutes is the federal employers, who have lawful jurisdiction over their own employment contracts, but who are constitutionally prohibited from interfering with private contracts between private parties in the fifty states.

I am not the intended “employee” under the law, the company is not the intended “employer” under the law, and as such, I will not even be earning “wages” which are actually subject to the withholding of income tax at the source under the provisions of Section 3402(a), as determined and controlled by the specific definitions provided for use in the entire Chapter (24) by Section 3401.

Since these payments do not meet the statutory definition of the term “wages” under Section 3401, they are not lawfully subject to the withholding of tax under Section 3402, unless I provide my voluntary permission for such withholding by providing a W-4 Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, requesting and authorizing withholding as proscribed under Section 3402(p).

Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) at Section 31.3402, which corresponds to 26 U.S.C. § 3402(p), it states in pertinent parts:

31.3402 (p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402 (p) to provide for the withholding of income tax…

(b) … an employee who desires to enter intoan agreement under section

3402 (p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402 (f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding….

And Title 26 C.F.R. 31.3402 (p) -1(b)(2) states :

“An agreement under Section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and the employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other.”

By these statutes and regulations it is clear that the withholding of income tax is by the citizen’s allowance, not a legal mandate.

However, one should not be distracted from the core issue here, which is the legal fact that after the citizen makes the certifications necessary regarding liability for tax under subtitle A as specified under subsection (n) of Section 3402, the company is relieved of the legal duty of withholding tax under Section 3402(a).

It is irrelevant what the company believes regarding the certifications of NO liability for tax under Subtitle A that have been delivered. Without evidence, or statutory fact to indicate the contrary, and having been provided with the certification statutorily specified as necessary, the company is henceforth relieved of the legal duty, and legal power, to withhold income tax from my remuneration under the provisions of this Subtitle C, section 3402.

Withholding of F.I.C.A. tax under Sections 3101, 3102 & 3111

The withholding of the F.I.C.A. tax from American citizens under the provisions of Section 3101, 3102 and 3111 is generally wrongfully assumed, by both the employment and legal communities, to apply in a mandatory fashion to American citizens living and working in one of the fifty states of America.

The fundamentally voluntary nature of the Social Security program is evidenced by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935), wherein the court ruled that Congress did not have authority to create a mandatory benefits program and cannot compel U.S. Citizens to participate in any benefits program:

“The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.”

The fact that social security, under the current code provisions, is not mandatory in the 50 states for an American Citizen, is clearly revealed by the definitions provided for “State” in Title 26, U.S.C. Section 3121, which is in Chapter 21, which is where the imposing statutory sections, 3101, 3102 and 3111, are located. These definitions control the territorial limits of the statutory power of the government to mandate the withholding of these (social security) taxes (imposed in Chapter 21). Subsection (e) of Section 3121 clearly provides:

(e) State, United States, and citizen

For purposes of this chapter –

(1) State

The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) United States

The term ”United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

Any individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

These definitions, controlling within Chapter 21 of the code and over all of that Chapters’ provisions, do not include the fifty union states. Lest there be any question that Congress is capable of writing clear laws, and capable of ONLY making obvious distinctions where it intends to, I would cite 26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(5), which states:

6103(b)…

(5) State

The term “State” means –

(A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, …

Any child can see that one of these definitionsclearly includes the fifty states, AND ONE OF THEM DOES NOT. Section 3121, EXCLUDING THE FIFTY STATES, is controlling within this discussion of Chapter 21 withholding requirements because it is itself sourced from within that Chapter, and clearly states within its text “For purposes of this chapter –“, making its definition (and no other) applicable and controlling within the application of this Chapter’s statutes.

The limited Chapter 21 definitions of territorial areas covered under the F.I.C.A. program (by virtue of the definitions provided for “state” and “United States” within Chapter 21), clearly show that the Subtitle C Employment Taxes are NOT direct or mandatory taxes for American citizens in the 50 states. To be so, would be a violation of the provisions of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United State of America and the Alton R.R. Supreme Court ruling cited above. The taxes are indirect and voluntary taxes for Citizens in the fifty states who wish to participate in the (social security) program and assume the tax, which is collected indirectly by employers at the citizen’s request, and which are totally dependent upon the employee’s voluntary decision to participate in the Social Security program through the providing to the employer by the employee of a request to withhold tax from the employees earnings, made on an IRS Form W-4, Withholding Allowance Certificate, which I have not done. We all do know what ALLOW means, right ?

The fact that the legal definitions specified at 26 U.S.C. § 3121(e) do not include the fifty states is confirmed by both the Legislative Counsel’s Office and the Congressional Research Offices as well.

The Constitution of the United States and Case Authorities

VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides five basic guarantees to every American citizen. It reads:

Amendment V

No person shall

[1] be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

[2] nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

[3] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

[4] nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

[5] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This dispute involves elements four and five, which are the Constitutional Rights to private property that are possessed by every American citizen as proscribed and enumerated under this Amendment. The portion of this Amendment that is relevant to this discussion, states:

“No person shall … be deprived of property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. “

It is upon this Amendment that the entire American system of private property is established and preserved. To erode the strength of its provisions is to willfully undermine that essential Right to private property, and ultimately will have the effect of unconstitutionally socializing all property in America in the name of tax. Under the Constitution and the philosophy for a representative government that it provides for, that must not and cannot be allowed to happen. The provisions of this Amendment are repugnant to the philosophy of social or communized property, and preclude the existence of any such mandatory laws in America. So none exist in America, as has been shown in this brief.

NO NEW POWERS UNDER THE 16th Amendment

While many people, including attorneys, mistakenly believe that the 16th Amendment created a “new” and previously non-existent power for Congress to tax income directly, it has already been shown that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

“… the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the … power of income taxation … from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged… ” Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112 (1916).

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 219 (1920)

These rulings are based on the legal realization that the Constitution cannot be allowed to conflict with itself. Since Article 1 prohibits direct taxation without apportionment, and mandates that all direct taxes be apportioned according to the census; and since these Article 1 provisions have never been repealed; then, the 16th Amendment cannot authorize a direct tax on income without apportionment, without causing an inherent conflict within the Constitution itself, rendering that document useless as a matter of law. The Supreme Court is sworn to uphold the Constitution and will never intentionally undermine its provisions, and that is why they had to rule that there was no new Congressional power to tax that was created by the 16th Amendment.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

For Due Process to be preserved in the instant matter, the company must cite some United State Code statute (law) under which they allege they are authorized and required by law to act as a collector of federal tax in regards to my remunerations, within the instant circumstances; or, they are unduly and unlawfully taking property without statutory or legal requirement to do so, and therefore would be acting merely in the name of tax and under color of law. To date, no person has ever cited any statute to me as justification for the apparently unlawful taking of my property in the name of tax.

In regards to Due Process the Supreme Court has stated:

“The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend;”

“Due process requires that when government adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect legal rights of individuals, they use procedures which have traditionally been associated with judicial process.”

Amos Treat & Co. v. S.E.C., 306 F2d 260 (1962), 113 US App. D.C. 100

“Administrative due process requires:

(1) opportunity to be heard,

(2) due notice of hearing ,

(3) fair conduct of hearing,

(4) support in record for decision,

(5) submission of proposed findings and tentative report, and

(6) opportunity to file and to be heard upon exceptions to the report.”

“The requirement of fair trial is binding on administrative agencies as well as on the courts” U.S. v. Brad, D.C. Cal 1968

“The fair hearing essential to meet minimal requirements of due process includes not only rudimentary fairness in conduct of hearing when and where held, but also reasonable fair opportunity to be present at time and place fixed to cross-examine any opposing witnesses, to offer evidence, and to be heard at least briefly in defense.” Jeffries v. Olsen, D.C. Cal 1954, 121 Fsupp 163

“A full hearing is one in which ample opportunity is afforded to all parties to make, by evidence and argument, a showing fairly adequate to establish the propriety or impropriety, from the standpoint of justice and law, of the step to be taken.” Boston and M.R.R. v. U.S., D.C. Mass. 1962, 208 Fsupp 661

“Agencies have latitude to expedite hearings in the public interest and to dispense with evidentiary hearings in view of the nature of questions raised after a notice of action is requested, but an agency cannot act on mere inspection of a file without giving notice and opportunity to request a hearing, except in a narrow class of real emergency cases.” PA. Gas & Water Co. v. Federal Power Comm., 427 F2d 568 1970, 138 U.S. App. D.C.

“Failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to denial of due process: if regulations are required by Constitution or statute.” Curley v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 52

“Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Burden of proof means going forward with the evidence.”

Bosma v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. 9, 1984, 754 F2d 804

“Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary 500 (6th ed. 1990); accord, U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 [93 S.Ct. 2832, 37 L.Ed.2d 767] (1973); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 [92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551] (1972)

“To rely upon conjecture, either in favor of or against the accused, is not justice. It is not due process of law by any definition.” Haley V. Ohio , 332 U.S. 596 (1948)

“And no person who has once come within the protection of the constitution can be punished without a trial. It may be summary, as for petty offenses and in cases of contempt, but still a trial, as known to the common law.”

Fong Yue Ting v. U S, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

I have been summarily denied all opportunity what-so-ever for any administrative hearing, I have been denied the opportunity to present evidence to support my position and to rebut claims, I have received no satisfactory response to my cites of law to you, and I am being wrongfully denied the use of my own property. The Federal Regulations governing I.R.S. conduct acknowledge and preserve the Fifth Amendment protections. At 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1) it states:

(1) Rule 1. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process, as the Handbook for Revenue Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following:

During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional uarantees and individual rights must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person of the taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass, assault and battery, conversion, etc.

The company has been unable to provide to me a copy of any lawful IRS Notice or letter supposedly controlling my property; I am being refused an opportunity to a hearing to present evidence and offer rebuttals; I am being refused any legal response under the law explaining to me the company’s actions. My property has been, and is being forcibly taken from me by deception, fraud and intimidation, amounting to nothing less than an unlawful exercise of power under color of office, and has been removed from my possession, control, and use, in direct violation of the provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

Since the company has never provided any satisfactory legal explanation as to their behavior, or addressed the above established statutory facts regarding the legal power to withhold tax, and have not provided any legal or written response to my written, notarized, legal correspondence, it is unknown whether the company believes that it is operating as an employer, allegedly empowered under the Subtitle C provisions of the United States Code to withhold income tax at the source, or, if they believe that they are operating as a Withholding Agent, empowered under the provisions of Subtitle A.

Since the duplicate Statements of Citizenship were written to address the statutory requirements of both Subtitles A and Subtitle C, this document covers and addresses all of the statutory legal powers and requirements of both Subtitles relating to the withholding of tax from declared American citizens within the 50 states.

WAIVER OF PENALTY

If the company is concerned about penalties or fines being imposed by the IRS as a result of the company obeying the statutory provisions of the law cited by myself, Title 26 U.S.C. § 6724 establishes a waiver of all penalties with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. It states:

6724. Waiver; definitions and special rules

(a) Reasonable cause waiver

No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown
that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

This waiver provision covers both Subtitle A and Subtitle C failures, so it is applicable regardless of whether the company argues they are operating as an employer or a withholding agent. Surely the company understands that being provided with duplicate Statements of Citizenship, per 26 CFR Section 1.1441-5, and having been given certification of no liability for subtitle A tax, per 26 USC § 3402(n), that these acts by the citizen, of asserting their Rights, constitute a just and “reasonable cause” for the company to not withhold income tax from the payments made to an American citizen, like myself. It is common knowledge in America that income tax is not actually due by law from citizens until April 15th of the next calendar year, so how can I be lawfully forced to pay a tax by this company before it is actually due under the law to be paid?

Any person who attempts to unlawfully order the withholding of tax from my remuneration after taking receipt of this legal response, will be guilty of making manifest a condition of involuntary servitude upon my person, and will therefore be in violation of the laws abolishing all forms of peonage in the United States of America. Title 15 U.S.C. § 17, states

“The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce…”,

and therefore, my labor and Rights to Contract, and to enjoy the fruits of my own labor, cannot be made the subject of any indirect tax, tariff or excise, nor may it be lawfully or properly converted to a privilege by any Government presumption or assumption, – as though it were such revenue taxable activity, or commodity or article of commerce subject to the Congressional power to tax.

Any person who forces, or attempts to force, an American citizen to pay an income tax before that tax is actually due under the letter of the law, violates the Fifth Amendment property rights of that citizen. Tax is not forcibly collectable until it is legally due under the letter of the law. The effect of any early taking, or to enforce on a citizen the pre-payment of tax in the name of tax through withholding before any tax is actually legally due by law to be paid, is simply an unlawful taking, wherein the citizen is forced to give up and effectively loan property to the U.S. government without just compensation to the citizen in the form of interest on the loan. I wish, and demand that the company honor my Constitutional rights, to have the use of, benefits of, and control over, ALL of my own property until such time as tax is actually legally due to be paid on it to the Treasury, NEXT APRIL 15th.

The facts in the instant matter appear to indicate that the IRS is trying to deceive and intimidate the company into conspiring with the I.R.S. to have the company steal the money from the citizen for the government, so that the government itself doesn’t actually have to commit the theft.

SUMMARY

When one takes it upon themselves to act on behalf of or for the government, they take it upon themselves to know and obey the limits of the authority they claim to be acting under.

“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Governmenttakes the risk of having accurately ascertainedthat he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority. . .and this is so even though as here the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” (Emphasis added) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merill, 332 U.S. 380 @ 384 (1947)]

“The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed upon them and their property seized.” Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F. 2nd 504 (1961) .

“The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted” Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465″

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

It is clear that the company has not accurately ascertained the bounds and limits of its legal authority, neither as a Withholding Agent dealing with contracts, nor as an employer dealing with wages, and in fact refuses to recognize those limits even after having been shown the law establishing such. It has failed utterly to provide any due process of law, acting under color of office by unlawfully taking and wrongfully converting private property in the name of tax under color of law without true legal cause or lawful authority to do so, and in fact continues to do so to this day.

The company has willfully failed to perform the legal duties specified in the law under 26 CFR § 1.1441-5(c) and 26 USC § 3402(n), as confirmed by IRS Publication 515, and continues to willfully exceed the legal limits of its lawful authority to withhold money from citizens, allegedly for subtitle A income tax, while allegedly acting as a tax collector for the federal government, either as a withholding agent, or as an employer,

There is an overwhelming preponderance of un-rebutted statutory evidence and facts that stands against the company in this matter, sufficiently so as to warrant future legal action against the company in the courts of the State of «State» if the matter is not quickly addressed and settled in accordance with the law to my satisfaction.

Please, I would appreciate it very much if the company could give me a statement in writing explaining its intended actions in this matter, and the statutory basis for them, before taking action based on this improper letter that you have been sent by this IRS agent. Thank you.

Thank you for your consideration and prompt response to these important legal matters.

do hereby solemnly swear that I am a natural born, or naturalized, sovereign Citizen of the United States of America, born as a free person, or naturalized by lawful federal process,

in the County of ______________________, in the State of _____________________,

on the date of _____________________, and that I have never knowingly or intentionally waived any of my Constitutionally guaranteed rights as an American Citizen or as a Citizen of one of the 50 states of the union.

This Statement is provided to you in order to document for you that I am not liable for tax under subtitle A (under Section 1461), nor, under the provisions of Subtitle A, am I subject to the withholding of income tax by a Withholding Agent, as defined in subtitle A, of Title 26 U.S.C. Sections 7701(a)(16), 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461.

This statement further serves to provides the certifications necessary under 26 U.S.C. Section 3402(n), that I have no liability for tax under Subtitle A in the past year, and that I anticipate that I will have no liability for tax under Subtitle A in the current tax year as well, thus relieving the recipient of this Statement from any and all legal duties (or perceived obligations) to withhold any income tax from my pay under the provisions of Section 3402(a).

_________________________________________

Affiant (Seal)

The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, of the State

of ______________________, County of _________________________________,

this_____ day of _________________ in the year 20___.

_________________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires on _____________________.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Read the letter through and put in your name and address and the company name and address where indicated. Do not change the arguments or the presentation, or statements about yourself being a citizen because you have heard something else is true – it isn’t. You are a citizen, that is why you have rights that we can use to defend your property.

Print the Statement of Citizenship twice, fill in the information, but do not sign them until you get to the bank. Take both copies to your bank and have your signature on them notarized.

Send both copies to your employer, Attn: Legal Counsel, with the signed 25 page letter, by certified mail, signature receipt return (use the green card at the post office). Do not hand deliver them.

There is no real difference between the two parties Democrat and Republican parties. The Deep State, Neocons, Banking Cabal, Illuminati is in control of the American Government.
Why is Trump being destroyed by the media? Because they also own the media, all media, Hollywood, Medical System, Insurance System, Education System, Scientific system, FBI, CIA, many churches/religions and more.
After ousting Bernie so she could be the Democratic candidate, Hillary was supposed to win the 2016 election so they could finalize their generations old plan. But….
Trump was asked to be president by the military. God intervened and is using Trump to search out and destroy these evil doers, these satanic pedophiles who divide and separate the people and make them dumb so they can easily fulfill their evil plan. They have been doing a great job of infiltrating every powerful branch of financial, science, education, government to gain control of all levels of power.

Don’t believe me, all you have to do is look back with eyes wide open and no attachment to any party or country or creed, or colour and see for yourself what has been going on. Then watch the videos below.

Supporting Trump, is supporting the destruction of evil and will bring forth peace on earth way quicker.

The US Fiat dollar hegemony has to be destroyed back to worthlessness. The new monetary system will take the place of the illuminati fake monetary system. We will again have a local currency rather than being the world reserve currency.

No more wars will be needed to create evil doings for these sadests.

They cannot read Trump so are lost as to how to overcome his 6-d chess manouvers which he obviously doesn’t publicize. He leads them down rabbitholes then becomes the fox. He knows exactly what he is doing and is brilliantly destroying their entire scheme of one world order.

This is also going on world wide. All countries are involved in hunting out the deep state human traffickers, drug cartels and are waiting to implement their own monetary systems that not controllled by the central banking cabal.

Now watch this video , The OIG Report. The Office of Inspector General.

The first video is important to watch but the SHITHOLE posts and videos are below this first one.

Anyone who thinks the govt. is doing nothing and has been doing nothing needs to watch this report given by the Office of Inspector General. Now if you don’t know how important that office is, you need to watch this as well. The take down of the deep state of which the Clintons are a huge part, has been in process for many years. Trump is in office as the last move before shtf. They cannot just reveal all to the American public apparantly because most are so unaware of what is really going on that they would be too shocked. So revealing it in stages so it is easier to digest has been the plan. This is a world wide event but of course the USA govt. is what this is about. Draining the swamp of pedophiles and treasonous aholes. This is a must watch if you want to hear directly from the mouth of the OIG about what has been going on and what is going on.

The OIG report , The War, Investigation and the Forthcoming Storm

I just cannot fathom the amount of ignorant hate the media is spreading by once again misinterpreting a possible comment, made in a private meeting that a hater made sure they reported to create hysteria. IF the comment was actually made, I took it as the actual state of the country that is a shithole, not the actual people. And why is Haiti in that shithole state to begin with? Obviously nature wrecked havoc, however, has everyone forgotten that Billions of dollars of aide were sent directly to the BUSH’s and CLINTON’S via CLINTON FOUNDATION, along with other supposed charitable foundations. So, where is all that money? That is what everyone should be outraged about. WHERE IS THE MONEY? If Trump did say that, it was most likely to bring attention to the fact that the money has never been used to rebuild Haiti or help the people there. And so the country is still in a state of shitholeness. NOT THE HAITIAN PEOPLE. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!! You are being played by the media. Stop falling for their twisted reporting and hate spreading rhetoric.

Rand Paul on Donald Trump’s Sh**Hole Comments

Given the history of the American Red Cross victimizing the people of Haiti AND Texas, and given the Clinton Foundation’s activities in Haiti and Hillary’s role specifically in toppling Gaddafi in Libya, we wonder if there’s more to the story…

This program will deal with a clear case where Senator Dick Durbin clearly lied in a case when Obama was president. Why then would so many of you believe him when he claims Trump referred to Haiti and/or African countries as “shithole” countries?

Diamond & Silk: Trump is not a racist; he’s a realist

Alveda King: Outrageous to call Trump ‘racist’

During the Campaign: Trump Hears Powerful Testimony from Haiti Official Insider

Haiti Official Who Exposed The Clinton Foundation ‘Charity’ Crimes Is Found Dead

Laura Silsby (Child Trafficking in Haiti w/ ties to Clinton) is now Laura Galyer, working at AlertSense (Amber Alerts) Every time I read this it turns my stomach…and I will continue to share until something is done about this monster.